The search for an efficient crime control in the justice system of America has been a controversial and point of debate for years. A keen look into the case shows that conflict and argument are conformist and liberal in nature which proves the issue is politically instigated. Looking at the fundamentals of the system first is enforcement law and maintenance of order, and protection of the public from injustices (Schmalleger, 1999).
A quick view of the two represents a similar ideology. However, the two are often in conflict with each other. Enforcement of law and maintenance of social order can be seen as a crime control model which is academic. It puts more emphasis on the precedence of arrest which sometimes can be aggressive, prosecution and sentencing of criminals. The second, protection of the public from injustices is more focused upholding and respecting the rights of accused individuals also known as the due process model (Schmalleger, 1999).
The due process model seems to be delivered from the Sixth amendment, where an accused person will have the rights of a speedy public trial. The jury should be unbiased, and the accused shall be notified of his/her reason of trial. The accused has a right to a have witness to testify in his/her favor and to be helped by a counsel in his defense. This has been the position defended and supported by the liberals while the conservative have endorsed crime control model. This model stems from the Fourth amendment where individuals have a right to be safe and secure in their homes, themselves and unfair seizures and searches. Such rights shall not be violated, and no warrants can be issued unless there is justified case under an oath with specifics of the location to be searched, items and persons to be seized (The United States Constitution).
The Fourth amendment has some loopholes in that there can warrantless searches in cases where an officer witnesses crime or has enough conviction that an individual has committed a documented crime. This conflicts with the Fourteenth amendment which provides for all equal protection by the laws. The point of conflict has been that only one of the two models can be followed to the core (The United States Constitution). This is a political persuasion, and the police and law agencies are part of the government and often have to be at the point of need when called upon and have to conform to the political influence (Schmalleger, 1999).
Casting an eye the numerous methods used in crime control model brings into the right kind of compelling in the model. ”War on Crime” has been a popular term amongst politicians and law enforcement agencies where the ultimate goal is getting rid of crime. This includes plans of highlighting high risk crime zones, intensified police patrol, raids, searches, tapping, undercover operations and profiling with the intent of breaking the criminal activities. In such circumstances, it is argued that some individual rights are violated for the common interest of the public (Schmalleger, 1999).
This means The Bill of Rights is negated here. This “War on Crime” has resulted mostly to collateral damage and sometimes loss of life in what the law enforcers call “acceptable losses “. The two has been witnessed in Morgan town, West Virginia, where an old woman was raided in a misinform tip of suspected Marijuana growing, and in Massachusetts where an old minister died of heart attack after unreliable information where the SWAT chased, wrestled and handcuffed the minister who died in the commotion, respectively (Schmalleger, 1999).
Do these two cases ring an alarm to the crime control proponents? On the other hand, should the justice system be paying too much attention to individual rights and freedom of every American? The Fourth amendments and the bill of Rights should observe and be interpreted in a non partisan way.